Actually, the Sex Pistols did have a major hit in "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, a single which sparked a lot of upheaval and social irritation. They released this song during Queen Elizabeth's Jubilee celebrations--something which the patriotic public took enormous offensive at--almost like giving the Royal Family a big, fat, blatant "V" sign. The song made it to number one on the New Musical Express charts in the UK, but the song was slighted at #2 on the official BBC UK Singles Chart. In fact, I think some printings of the BBC chart listings back then left the slot blank as a way to censor the band.

Yeah, I thought about God Save the Queen before I made my comment about hits. But as I tell my European friends all the time, hits over there mean very little in the bigger picture, because the world view of making it starts and stops with success in the US. And that has nothing to do with what's fair, that's just is what it is. In the bigger scheme of things a #2 hit in the UK only equates to having a hit in Texas. As for queen related controversies, that too is of no consequence in America where most of the HOF voters reside. Now if those guys had pulled that stunt with Princess Diana, then you would have had something. The American critics who have so much to do with HOF voting simply don't think Europe exists until it visits America. That's the way it's always been.[/quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlarkKent

Mattsmith makes a good point about the American South and religion, however; I lived there for a time and some people in the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia corridor possess a religious attitude that dates back to the 1950s. Extremely conservative and, depending on your point of view, amazingly close minded..

I was born in North Carolina and spent years there. I live in Georgia now. Try 1550s. I had a friend in middle school who had a 1970s era picture in his den of his high school aged mom burning Alice Cooper records at a church rally. And in Alabama and Mississippi its even more conservative than that. In the south, for a large number of people, protection of literal biblical interpretation comes before all things, including life itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlarkKent

I think a lot of lyrics coming out of the punk and post-punk scene in England were a lot more severe than Jethro Tull--they sort of took the political critique in some prog rock, like Tull, and raised the volume level well past 11.

Tull was also far more popular in their time. My parents claim that Aqualung was everywhere, whereas punk never really gained a foothold in farm country. As for Clockwork Orange, that was banned in the rural areas too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlos

I'm not going to pretend I totally know what they're thinking, but my guess is that the committee that dictates what the RRHoF does is purely motivated by doing what they think will bring money and attention to the hall, not by serving some higher purpose to honor the legacy of rock.

I think there is much to be said for this opinion. But if that's true then how is Rush being hurt? Apparently, there is this extremely vocal, if not rabid core group that make a lot of noise for these guys, Peart especially. A hundred or so Rush devotees could walk around the HOF building in Cleveland holding signs, and it would be on the MTV News in 10 minutes, followed by Stephen Colbert's inevitable parody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlos

By staying within the commonly accepted boundaries defined by the genre of Rock & Roll they limit themselves to one segment of the buying public. But by branching out and including acts from Dance, Rap, Hip Hop, Jazz and Blues genres they will be able to suck more $$$$ from different portions of the general public that might otherwise not be interested in trekking to Cleveland to see the museum..

Broad parameters also protect an ethical consideration more important than money. Keeping the parameters for induction broad is what helps get Rush inducted, not the other way around. You never want someone officially defining commonly accepted boundaries. Too much of that is nothing but personal opinion anyway, and is open to real predjudice and class warfare. Just think of all the groups who believe that nothing came before Elvis, the real stuff ended with the death of John Lennon, or that all rap is about nothing but shooting cops and slapping your mama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlos

Of course this is now getting off topic and becoming a thread about why the R&RHoF sucks. I've been there and I found it only mildly interesting. I think pretty much everyone can agree Rush should be in their by this point in time.

Threads get off direct topic all the time, and in this case I think it's fine since HOF induction tying into the Peart legacy, has been at the core of Peart related discussions for the past three years or more. We all know that Peart has few listeners with a middle ground opinion. Most either see him as an icon on the same level as Rich, Williams, Elvin Jones and Krupa, or can't believe how overrated he is. I've always thought the truth was somewhere in the middle, which may explain why this interesting Rush HOF drama continues to play out like it does.

The main criticism is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals who are not even musicians, such as founder Jann Wenner, former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole.

am a veteran music journalist who spent two years on the Hall's nominating committee and saw from the inside some of the politics at work.

"I saw how artists were sometimes chosen for nomination because of their affiliations with the directors of the Hall and others were shot down without so much as a moment of consideration simply because some people in that room didn't like them personally or because an artist had bad blood with someone calling the shots.

"At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist.

As for the nine nominees offered up earlier this year, which also included Donna Summer, Chic, Afrika Bambaataa and the Beastie Boys: “I couldn’t vote for any of ’em,” said Joel Selvin, longtime music writer at the San Francisco Chronicle and a former member of the Rock Hall of Fame nominating committee.

“It doesn’t matter who they elected,” Selvin said. “This thing has sunk to a shameful level of manipulation and behind-the-scenes chicanery. If it were a public institution — which it is — it would be held up for total ridicule.”

Not has Rush been left out, but so has Kiss (who've outsold most bands), Journey, The Moodly Blues, and a number of other high profile, successful and influencial rock bands, while someone like Madonna gets in, no problem.

It's one thing to over look a particular favorite, like Rush, but the list of questionable choices goes on, and HOF has done little to clear up the controversy that surrounds it, including repeated slammings from people who used to be involved in with the committee.

It's a rock and roll hall of fame. Kind of Blue and Milestones doesn't make that happen. And if anyone still believed such a contention, all they had to do was view the Miles award ceremony where nothing but 70s styled fusion was played with a dash of Marcus Miller thrown in, while Herbie Hancock was there not to reintroduce the 2nd classic quintet, but to show his Miles related fusion influences. No, Miles Davis got into the rock and roll hall of fame because some of those 70s bands were among the most creative and influential rock configurations of their time. I am also aware that most don't get how Louie Armstrong qualified either, when his widespread popularization of Western African syncopation is the primary reason why rock vocalists /and everyone else from the past 100 years/ sings the way they do. His umbrella was too large to ignore.

Well, if that was the case, then I am awaiting the induction of the Tony Williams Lifetime, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return To Forever, Weather Report, etc. Miles was a pioneer.

Quote:

You're obviously not from the American South, where even so called infantile religious lyrics are as confrontational as they come. Southerners have seen widespread political upheavel time and time again, but messing with the religious end can get you in a whale of hurt. Uneven urban critics like Guterman most certainly don't understand things like that. Besides, as many people over the years, have been laughing at Jimmy Guterman's overreaching assesments as have admired them. He's not exactly a poster child for the last word, that's for sure. Moreover, I would doubt that his vote influences no one else, that is if he still even has one.

Matt, I was:

1. Born in Mobile, Alabama, in 1956;
2. Grew up in Pensacola, the belt buckle of the bible belt;
3. Went to segregated elementary schools and still remember separate restrooms and drinking fountains;
4. Lived in Pensacola during MLK's assassination;
5. Endured the violent race riots that followed;
6. Absolutely surrounded by Pentacostals who were indifferent to Aqualung. They were still to busy calling the Beatles evil and playing their records backwards to get satanic messages.

You are from the South, but you are also too young to remember when Aqualung came out. Take my word for it. It did not spark an outrage in the South.

Guterman is only one voice, but his voice absolutely reflects that of the others in his disdain for progressive rock. This was simply another vehicle for him to attack Tull. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else (he slammed Thick As a Brick as well).

Also, please note that I said GENERALLY in the previous post. I did not say universally. As in everything else, there are exceptions to the rule.

Been a big fan of Neil's for years and years, even though I mostly listen to other players these days.

For me, his best solo appeared on the Rush In Rio DVD, in terms of content, excitement and flow.

The Snakes and Arrow solo, which I saw live here on the UK, for me didn't hit the mark like some of his previous work.

Incidentally, a guy I work with recently ran me off a huge pile of Rush bootlegs which I more or less flicked through, but Neil's solo from the mid 80s (Grace Under Pressure Tour), and another from the early 90s (Presto tour) are worth checking out if you get the chance.

Paradiddler, thank you for writing your reviews. They are fun to read. I do have to respectfully disagree with the #1 though. His momo's party and the electronic stuff after was pretty weak. Even the waltz. Considering what Thomas Lang has done with electronics, it seems Neil would either not go there or at least have something comparable. The electronic stuff made zero sense to me at least. If a nobody like me finds it lacking then that is the least of Neil's worries ;)

THere are some great bootlegs out there. I heard one from Roll the Bones. Neil started on the electronic kit which he stated in his Anatomy dvd that he never did that. That solo was killer. The drum sound was the best I ever heard from him. On Freewill for the band solo section, he dropped a stick during the ride pattern (WAY faster live) and he was just playing the dotted eighth bass/snare. After retrieving another stick, he just lays in with fury. That bootleg sort of immortalized Neil for me.

I will ALWAYS and forever be partial to the Exit: Stage Left solo in YYZ. Loved the live recording of that with his Tamas. It's my all-time favorite of his recorded solos, and I'm not about to change my choice any time in the next 2 or 3 lifetimes. ;-)

But, I do want to convey my appreciation to you for your continued postings of your NP solo series, here on DW.

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

Pbm,

That gig sounds like it's gonna be a blast! Wish I could be there, but alas, I'm all the way in Atlanta, GA, quite the ways from you! Anyhow, I believe I have the explanation on the fill you're having trouble with.

You're thinking triplets, but it's actually the single stroke four rudiment! He starts on the snare, then, as you know, goes down each tom until he hits the crash (you know that part, I'm sure). On the snare, the dynamics for each stroke is about the same - same volume for each stroke. But on each tom going down, each of the four strokes crescendos, the next note louder than the previous one, with the fourth stroke being the loudest. What makes the roll sound so smooth as Neil transitions to the next tom is that as soon as he hits the fourth stroke the loudest, he's already striking the next tom softly to begin the next single stroke four crescendo. Of course, this is happening very fast, which is why it sounds so smooth.

So the short of it is that it's a single stroke four rudiment, first stroke softest, last stroke loudest, next tom first stroke softest, last stroke loudest, and so on. If done right (that is, the way Neil makes it sound!), when you're on the lowest tom it should sound very impactful and loud as you strike that last note of the single stroke four, then crashing at the end.

Hopefully I explained it ok. Give it a shot, play it out, and let us know if it sounds right to you. I'm really curious!

I invite anybody who thinks I'm wrong to correct me (or those who think I'm right to confirm me!), but I think (strongly) that this is what Neil plays on that section of YYZ.

Paradiddler, thank you for writing your reviews. They are fun to read. I do have to respectfully disagree with the #1 though. His momo's party and the electronic stuff after was pretty weak. Even the waltz. Considering what Thomas Lang has done with electronics, it seems Neil would either not go there or at least have something comparable. The electronic stuff made zero sense to me at least. If a nobody like me finds it lacking then that is the least of Neil's worries ;)

THere are some great bootlegs out there. I heard one from Roll the Bones. Neil started on the electronic kit which he stated in his Anatomy dvd that he never did that. That solo was killer. The drum sound was the best I ever heard from him. On Freewill for the band solo section, he dropped a stick during the ride pattern (WAY faster live) and he was just playing the dotted eighth bass/snare. After retrieving another stick, he just lays in with fury. That bootleg sort of immortalized Neil for me.

Hey Zumba,

I know the exact bootleg you're talking about. Yes, that solo is incredible, and I wish it got published. Yeah, I think Neil got angry that he dropped his stick, but we're all glad he did 'cause that lick he played right after was killer.

I'll have to disagree with you though on the #1 solo, although I see what you're saying. Heck, nobody's Thomas Lang in that regard, so Neil can only do what's within the context of the solo he's trying to create. To me, his solos are as creative as anybody's, even if he's not as speedy as others. I did find the electronics stuff most creative, different than anything he's done.

Of course Neil isn't the most technically proficient drummer on the planet, but he is a worthy inspiration. The man has chops, speed, and creativity. He was the reason I started playing drums. I think that the wave of drummers influenced by someone like Peart will turn out a lot better than those influenced by Barker or Jordison, so I don't understand the Peart bashing.

Of course Neil isn't the most technically proficient drummer on the planet, but he is a worthy inspiration. The man has chops, speed, and creativity. He was the reason I started playing drums. I think that the wave of drummers influenced by someone like Peart will turn out a lot better than those influenced by Barker or Jordison, so I don't understand the Peart bashing.

I guess this get's to the heart of what is wrong with some players these days - it's all about faster, harder, and if you can't do JoJo Mayer push/pull to 350bpm you ain't worth sh*t!!! BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MUSIC?

Neil Peart's a great drummer, but his GENIUS is in the parts he creates for the songs; how he builds from one section to another throughout a song with detail and logic, not to mention how what he plays works with the other instruments. I've been learning many of his parts beat for beat (well as close as I can get) for a gig, and the more I listen, the more the shape and intent behind the parts astounds me. Maybe he's just doing a lot of it on intuition, but then in some ways that's even more impressive.

I always think the sign of a great musician - the thing we aspire to but so rarely achieve - is that someone can hear us play and know it is us. That's not about how fast you can play - BB King can do that with one note! It's very hard for drummers in rock music to assert that kind of character, and the fact that Neil Peart has a distinct approach (well, up to when they got too inspired by The Police post Moving Pictures) is another testament to his greatness.

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

Hi andSometimesY,

Great username, by the way! You may find interesting a couple of articles I wrote regarding the 'best drummer' title:

Excellent post, pbm. There is almost always a difference between whomever my favorite drummer is at the time and the drummer that I think is the best at the instrument. My favorite may not be the very best, but the things he plays flow so perfectly with the music that if you aren't listening for drums, you will forget they are there. I call music that flows together like that "transcendental" music, because it transcends the senses (at least my senses).

P.S. pbm, does the singer for that Rush show you are doing sound anything like Geddy? That would be a tough find if so. Will anyone be recording the show? It sounds really interesting and I would come if I was close enough.

I totally agree - the best drummer for the music and for the instrument can be two very different people. The White Stripes with Thomas Lang would be awful. But I wouldn't go to see a Meg White drum clinic.

With regards the gig - the singer's pretty damn good, it's a big ask of anyone and nobody sounds like Geddy - it's amazing we've found him! But we aren't setting ourselves up as Rush 2, we are just some pretty musical fans of the band playing music we love for people that want to hear these songs loud and live. We will record it and get a myspace page together - I'll let you know.

Recently on DrumChannel.com, Doane Perry, Neil Peart, and Terry Bozzio sat down for a chat and jam session, and it was most interesting! I wrote about the highlights and the points I thought were most worthy of note in my latest article on my web site:

Recently on DrumChannel.com, Doane Perry, Neil Peart, and Terry Bozzio sat down for a chat and jam session, and it was most interesting! I wrote about the highlights and the points I thought were most worthy of note in my latest article on my web site:

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

pbm!

Just wondering how the gig went. Did it happen? How was your rendition of YYZ? I hope there are some videos!

I don't want to come across like a salesman on a forum, but I know that most Neil Peart fans would be interested to see this kit, even if not to bid on it. My store is putting up Neil's original Rush kit for sale on ebay starting on this coming Sunday. This is the kit that was on the cover of All the World's a Stage, used to record 2112 etc.. The photos we're using are pretty awesome, and this kit is such a cool thing to see for Neil fans. If you want to bid on it, fine, but if you're a serious about Mr. Peart it's just plain cool to check out. The drums have been in our store for months and people have ben coming in and just bugging out.

I like his earlier kits a lot better than his newer ones. Having all of the unusual percussion instruments as physically part of his kit, in my opinion, looks way cooler than having it all in trigger pads and electronics. The best kits are from A Farewell to Kings to Grace Under Pressure.

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.

Hey BB!

You make a great case for the improv/evolution side. I can understand where you're coming from. It's nice to hear a song evolve and change to get a different perspective of how it was originally intended.

Though, I have to disagree when it comes to Rush. I DO wanna hear the song(s) played the same live as it/they was/were recorded. That's what makes Rush such a great band, and Neil Peart such a fantastic drummer.

Their recordings are so pristine, you HAVE to admire that they can pull off the songs live, and appreciate their commitment to the music. Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?

To hear and see the song "Natural Science" live now, the way it was recorded back in 1979/1980 is an amazing feat, if you ask me.

That's what impresses me about NP. His commitment to the "masterpiece"

Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.

I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.

Oh yes, LD. Neil talks quite often about "not" wanting to play the same solo exactly the same in each show. He's quite adamant about how he doesn't want to be too repetitious with his solos. He does "improv" his concert solos as much as he can.

Nah. Have to disagree. No one would want to change a Picasso, a van Gogh, a Renior, or a DaVinci. That would be ridiculous.

"Works of art" are that for what they are. Changing them doesn't increase the beauty of them.

They don't need a "re-interpretation".

Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.

Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.

Yes. But the "finished" work is what makes the piece. And what Neil Peart records on a particular Rush song, is the "finished" work. To hear him play his master"piece" live, is the genius of his playing.

Like going to see a great artists' painting in a museum. You don't want to see a different "interpretation" of his/her specific painting each time you see it. It's a work-of-art for it's "finished" artistry. At the risk of repeating myself, of course.

Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.

Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.

Well, it's just like everything else. It's all "opinion". I'm a huge Rush fan. You're probably not. So we will have different takes on this. But I'm not a fan of "re-working" songs/albums that don't need it.